From what I've been told Rice and SMU own the naming rights to the SWC because of the movement that happened immediately after the SWC broke up. The Big 12 Southers left the right to the now non AQ's and Houston gave up its rights when it split from the others and left for CUSA, and TCU surrendered its control after they left for the MWC. So with the threat of super 16 team conferences around the corner and the influx of Texas teams into FBS, I could see this becoming more and more realistic. Rice will probably left out of the MWC's attempt at a 16 team bid so why not break away from the soon to be hybrid CUSA/SunBelt and start fresh. Just have the geniuses at Rice and Tulsa start inviting teams in their state that would jump at the chance to decrease travel cost by forming a MAC like bus league with UNT, UTSA, TX St, LA Tech, ULL, ULM. That 8 but it leave room open for upgrades like Lamar, SHSU, SFA, UTA. Plus I could see NM St, Tulsa, Ark St, So Miss, and possibly Memphis wanting to limit cost if they are left out of the big money conferences. This would allow for rivalries to form and also allow Rice and Tulane to be competitive since their academic requirements are limiting their ability to keep up with the Texas' and LSU's of the world.

This could also be good for the CUSA/Sun Belt since they could finally have a footprint similar to the ACC with MTSU, UAB, SoBama, Jacksonville St, Troy, GA Southern/St, FIU/FAU, UCF/USF (maybe), ECSU, App St, Old Dominion, Richmond, James Madison, Marshall, and Nova.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Here are my schools to get the conference back in action. The replacement school tries to add a bit of the original flavor of the conference, plus adding schools from additional states. Which could cure the main problem with the SWC(too many schools from one state). With this group...there are 6 schools from Texas and at least one from Arkansas, Tenn., Louisiana, and either N Mex or Colorado to round things out. The conference could also go to 14 or 16 teams without too much trouble.

Possible cites: Houston, Dallas, El Paso, New Orleans, San Marcos, Memphis, Jonesboro, Lafayette, Abilene, and finally either; Las Cruces, Colo. Springs, Denton, or Ruston.This plan also contains no less than 5 private schools, which would copy the flavor of the original SWC.

There is no easy way to replace teams like Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas or Oklahoma....except to give another school the same chance. With years of rivalry...these schools could come together and unite their strength.

I had heard that Southwest Texas State (now Texas State) had bought the rights for the South West Conference when the conference collapsed. Is there any truth to this rumor?

I went to the State of Texas Sport Hall of Fame this weekend. The Southwest Conference is still a living entity in the state. It was not clear who "owns" the name (and I asked) but I can almost guarantee you it's the leftover SWC members (but can't figure out which) and NOT Texas State.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

I had heard that Southwest Texas State (now Texas State) had bought the rights for the South West Conference when the conference collapsed. Is there any truth to this rumor?

I went to the State of Texas Sport Hall of Fame this weekend. The Southwest Conference is still a living entity in the state. It was not clear who "owns" the name (and I asked) but I can almost guarantee you it's the leftover SWC members (but can't figure out which) and NOT Texas State.

I searched the name "Southwest Conference" on the Texas Secretary of State - Taxable Entity Search. "Southwest Conference" came up, so I clicked on it. Here were the results that came up:

I had heard that Southwest Texas State (now Texas State) had bought the rights for the South West Conference when the conference collapsed. Is there any truth to this rumor?

I went to the State of Texas Sport Hall of Fame this weekend. The Southwest Conference is still a living entity in the state. It was not clear who "owns" the name (and I asked) but I can almost guarantee you it's the leftover SWC members (but can't figure out which) and NOT Texas State.

I searched the name "Southwest Conference" on the Texas Secretary of State - Taxable Entity Search. "Southwest Conference" came up, so I clicked on it. Here were the results that came up:

I'm not sure they own all of that. As a complete guess, when the original Southwest Conference members split (XII, SEC, WAC) the entity probably dissolved. Texas State must have been proactive in obtaining the naming rights. I checked the State of Oklahoma and the Southwest Conference name is not an entity name used for athletic purposes, so it seems Texas State does own it. I doubt the history goes along with it. Like if the Metro Conference was ever re-created, I don't think the history of the old Metro Conference would follow along with it.

I'm not sure they own all of that. As a complete guess, when the original Southwest Conference members split (XII, SEC, WAC) the entity probably dissolved. Texas State must have been proactive in obtaining the naming rights. I checked the State of Oklahoma and the Southwest Conference name is not an entity name used for athletic purposes, so it seems Texas State does own it. I doubt the history goes along with it. Like if the Metro Conference was ever re-created, I don't think the history of the old Metro Conference would follow along with it.

Correct, however the branding and use of the SWC name/logo would/could be actionable. I assume if Texas State does indeed own the name (though I've never seen anything from them about the SWC) that they wouldn't want to enforce their protection of the name against schools like Texas, A&M, Rice, SMU, Tech, etc who are all above them in the conference latter.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

While we are on the topic of the Southwest Conference, I always wondered why TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice didn't try to keep the SWC alive. At the time of the SWC collapse the Great Midwest and Metro schools had not yet settled their blood feud. Tulsa was also looking for a conference at the time too. Maybe UTEP and New Mexico could have been enticed by the prospect of playing in those big Texas markets. The pool that those 4 core schools could have drawn from would have included:

TulsaTulaneMemphisCincinnatiLouisvilleSouthern MissUTEPNew Mexico

I feel like they could have produced a credible 10 or 12 member league and a byproduct of that move would have been that the WAC would not have over expanded and led to the WAC-MWC split in 1999.

While we are on the topic of the Southwest Conference, I always wondered why TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice didn't try to keep the SWC alive. At the time of the SWC collapse the Great Midwest and Metro schools had not yet settled their blood feud. Tulsa was also looking for a conference at the time too. Maybe UTEP and New Mexico could have been enticed by the prospect of playing in those big Texas markets. The pool that those 4 core schools could have drawn from would have included:

TulsaTulaneMemphisCincinnatiLouisvilleSouthern MissUTEPNew Mexico

I feel like they could have produced a credible 10 or 12 member league and a byproduct of that move would have been that the WAC would not have over expanded and led to the WAC-MWC split in 1999.

I agree, but I believe Houston already had one foot out the door....during the last season of the SWC. So, it would have only been SMU, TCU, and Rice. Which is still a nice trio...if they would have stuck together under the SWC flag.

While we are on the topic of the Southwest Conference, I always wondered why TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice didn't try to keep the SWC alive. At the time of the SWC collapse the Great Midwest and Metro schools had not yet settled their blood feud. Tulsa was also looking for a conference at the time too. Maybe UTEP and New Mexico could have been enticed by the prospect of playing in those big Texas markets. The pool that those 4 core schools could have drawn from would have included:

TulsaTulaneMemphisCincinnatiLouisvilleSouthern MissUTEPNew Mexico

I feel like they could have produced a credible 10 or 12 member league and a byproduct of that move would have been that the WAC would not have over expanded and led to the WAC-MWC split in 1999.

I agree, but I believe Houston already had one foot out the door....during the last season of the SWC. So, it would have only been SMU, TCU, and Rice. Which is still a nice trio...if they would have stuck together under the SWC flag.

Yes, Houston had a foot out the door but they were jumping in bed with many of the schools on this list. It would have just been a matter of the other 3 Texas schools being part of that conversation in place of the non-football schools from the Metro and Great Midwest. I'm thinking either 10 members of 12, pending whether or not UAB and USF were commited to FBS football at the time.

While we are on the topic of the Southwest Conference, I always wondered why TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice didn't try to keep the SWC alive. At the time of the SWC collapse the Great Midwest and Metro schools had not yet settled their blood feud. Tulsa was also looking for a conference at the time too. Maybe UTEP and New Mexico could have been enticed by the prospect of playing in those big Texas markets. The pool that those 4 core schools could have drawn from would have included:

TulsaTulaneMemphisCincinnatiLouisvilleSouthern MissUTEPNew Mexico

I feel like they could have produced a credible 10 or 12 member league and a byproduct of that move would have been that the WAC would not have over expanded and led to the WAC-MWC split in 1999.

I agree, but I believe Houston already had one foot out the door....during the last season of the SWC. So, it would have only been SMU, TCU, and Rice. Which is still a nice trio...if they would have stuck together under the SWC flag.

Yes, Houston had a foot out the door but they were jumping in bed with many of the schools on this list. It would have just been a matter of the other 3 Texas schools being part of that conversation in place of the non-football schools from the Metro and Great Midwest. I'm thinking either 10 members of 12, pending whether or not UAB and USF were commited to FBS football at the time.

Houston was considered for the Big 12 when it started before Baylor lobbied its way in. Houston went to the new C-USA because they were actually a major program like the schools who went to the Big 12, whereas SMU had their scandal to set them back and Rice and TCU very rarely went to bowl games (TCU only went to bowl games 3 times from '60-'95, and Rice only in '60 and '61 in that time). C-USA from '96-'05 was comparable to today's American, the MW a few years ago, the WAC from '05-'09, and had at least 1 team ranked most years as if it was a major.

Rice, SMU and TCU didn't really have options to redo the Southwest. They could've made a conference with nearby schools who would've likely joined, but based on competitiveness and other factors it would've likely been-RiceSMUTCUTulsa (from Independent/MVC)UTEP (from WAC)SW Louisiana (now UL-Laf) (from Big West FB/Sun Belt)La. Tech (from Big West FB/Sun Belt)North Texas (from Independent/Southland)

While that would be a decent conference now, collectively back then it would've had no high quality programs when it started. That combined with the bad rep the conference was getting, and the WAC was a far better option for the SWC leftovers.

I didn't think about what poor condition the football programs of the 3 private schools when I considered rebuilding the SWC. Those schools wouldn't have had the strength to pull the trio or Cincy/Louisville/Memphis when the merged Metro/Great Midwest offered better overall tv markets and far superior basketball than a rebuilt SWC.

Okay, on the topic of the SWC -Since Texas State owns the SWC, lets say they begin building the SWC from among the lower 5 conf schools. Who would you add to make a 12 member conf with Texas State - assuming the schools that you choose are all for joining this conference? (interesting new look? or go for a more traditional regional look?)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum